Quashed

Mogili Yedukondalu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2021WP/11860/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging the suspension of a fair price shop dealer authorization. The court directed the authority to complete the enquiry expeditiously after granting a hearing and directed respondents to continue supply of essential commodities pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Competent authority directed to complete enquiry expeditiously after hearing; respondents directed to continue supply of essential commodities pending disposal.

Mogili Yedukondalu Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

W.P.No.11860 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Guntur dated 19.05.2020 suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar inspected the subject shop on 18.05.2020 and alleged that there were variations with regard to rice, sugar and dall, when infact there were no variations at all; a mediatornama was prepared alleging excess stock of 4.03 quintals of rice, 0.48 quintals of red gram dall and shortage of 0.02 kgs of sugar at the time of inspection; petitioner informed the Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda that the stock of 4.03 quintals of rice, 0.48 quintals of red gram dall is not excess stock and it is the left over balance stock released by the Central Government during the period of Covid-19 pandemic and the said stock was not reflected in the ePos machine; but without taking into consideration the said explanation submitted by the petitioner at the time of inspection, a report was submitted against the petitioner on 19.05.2020 to take disciplinary action and basing on the said report a show cause notice was issued framing two (2) charges and on the same day, the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner were issued; challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the variation in the stock is

¶8

¶9

due to the stock released by the Central Government during the Covid-19 pandemic, but without taking into consideration the said explanation, the impugned proceedings dated 19.05.2020 were issued.

¶10

When the Writ Petition came up for admission an interim order was passed on 21.07.2020 suspending the suspension order.

¶11

As seen from the impugned proceedings, prima facie, it appears that the variations are beyond the permissible limits, but, whether the said variation was due to supply of stock by the Central Government during the Covid-19 pandemic or not is a matter to be decided in the enquiry.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority is directed to complete the enquiry which is initiated against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. As there is already an interim direction, respondents are directed to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of the enquiry against him. It is needless to mention that the petitioner has to cooperate with the enquiry and shall not take unnecessary adjournments in the matter.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶14

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

¶15

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶16

Dated: 02.11.2021 EPS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶19

127

¶20

W.P. No.11860 of 2020

¶21

Date:02-11-2021

¶22

EPS

¶23

Mogili Yedukondalu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mogili Yedukondalu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Randhi Asha Jyothi Vs Randhi Vishnu

Mirthipati (Nemala) Lalitha Kumari Vs Mirthipati Murali Krishna

T Swathi Vs Y Naveen Kumar

Fair Price Shops Dealers Welfare Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Padala Appalakonda Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Hyd,and 3

G.V.V. Ramana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh